I've given this a good deal of thought, and I honestly can't understand why the US is, or should remain, one unified country. Look at the election map from last night. A huge sea of red, with blue on both ends and some at the top.

I'm from Boston. I don't share the culture, the beliefs, the values, the religion, or the economic conditions of all of those red states in the south and the midwest. Let me be honest - I don't like those places, and I don't like most of the people who live there. And they feel the same about me and where I live, and anyone who says differently is a liar.

You can wave "united we stand" flags and talk about being "proud to be an american" all you want, but at the end of the day, there are at least 2 countries here, if not more, and they have no business being associated with each other in any way more serious than as trading partners. The difference in culture and values is too great. I don't want those red states having any say over how my country is run, and they don't want people like me having any say over how their country is run.

It makes me absolutely sick that the gay marriage ban passed by overwhelming margins in 11 out of 11 states. (I'm a straight, white male, btw.) It probably makes most southerners and midwesterners sick to think that there are married gay people in MA right now.

In this election, whoever won, about 49% of the pekople were going to be sick at the thought of the next 4 years. With 2 countries, there would still be elections, but there would be much finer distinction - like the primaries are now. 49% of the country wouldn't rabidly hate their elected leader. The US is already 2 countries in every way that matters except governmental control. Why not just make it official?

I've given this a good deal of thought, and I honestly can't understand why the US is, or should remain, one unified country. Look at the election map from last night. A huge sea of red, with blue on both ends and some at the top.

I'm from Boston. I don't share the culture, the beliefs, the values, the religion, or the economic conditions of all of those red states in the south and the midwest. Let me be honest - I don't like those places, and I don't like most of the people who live there. And they feel the same about me and where I live, and anyone who says differently is a liar.

You can wave "united we stand" flags and talk about being "proud to be an american" all you want, but at the end of the day, there are at least 2 countries here, if not more, and they have no business being associated with each other in any way more serious than as trading partners. The difference in culture and values is too great. I don't want those red states having any say over how my country is run, and they don't want people like me having any say over how their country is run.

It makes me absolutely sick that the gay marriage ban passed by overwhelming margins in 11 out of 11 states. (I'm a straight, white male, btw.) It probably makes most southerners and midwesterners sick to think that there are married gay people in MA right now.

In this election, whoever won, about 49% of the pekople were going to be sick at the thought of the next 4 years. With 2 countries, there would still be elections, but there would be much finer distinction - like the primaries are now. 49% of the country wouldn't rabidly hate their elected leader. The US is already 2 countries in every way that matters except governmental control. Why not just make it official?

Click to expand...

One of the wonderful things about this country is that we can all live together AND have differing opinions. Diversity as it were.

This country was founded on the idea that different is OK. We fought to keep it united when people wanted to secede over their complete different-ness.

Click to expand...

Right, and I don't see why the Civil War was worthwhile except on the slavery issue. As far as I'm concerned, the South should have been able to leave if it wanted. Both sides would be happier today if they had. (provided they freed the slaves first... which would never happen, I know, but I'm talking theoretically.)

My question is really why *should* we live together when our opinions are so different? Aside from the fact that it's a historical precedent, what's the *point?*

We don't get along, so we go our separate ways. Like a no-fault divorce.

Right, and I don't see why the Civil War was worthwhile except on the slavery issue. As far as I'm concerned, the South should have been able to leave if it wanted. Both sides would be happier today if they had. (provided they freed the slaves first... which would never happen, I know, but I'm talking theoretically.)

My question is really why *should* we live together when our opinions are so different? Aside from the fact that it's a historical precedent, what's the *point?*

We don't get along, so we go our separate ways. Like a no-fault divorce.

Click to expand...

Do you remember when the South was a Democratic stronghold? Things change. If we divided now, who's to say in 20 years those divisions would still be valid?

Another thing to keep in mind is that those red and blue states made the divisions seem too clear. All of the states were different shades of purple, really. Some more red, others more blue, but none red or blue.

So, I am a liar because I say that even though I am southern by birth and Alabama by the grace of God that even though I feel that way. When I say I love Boston, the northeast, and my friends that are democrats, then I am a liar.

Please.

That is the most rediculous thing that I have ever heard, and frankly, it is an ignorant statement that is being blinded by the fact that you cannot take the fact that Bush won. Why?

You quote the ammendments that were restricting gay rights. I support civil unions, and frankly gay marriage. However, the will of the people is the will of the people. If you are in the minority, you are in the minority. However, much of the heartland is conservative, while the coasts tend to be liberal. The problem wasn't the country, it was your candidate. He was to liberal for the heartland.

The only way the democrats will carry the country, is by nominating a southern democrat IE Clinton and Carter.

I'm really tired of the blue states writing off the rest of the country as a bunch of uncultured goons.

Even in the most conservative of conservative states, Utah, 26 percent of voters went for Kerry. 43 percent of North Carolina did, and most "red" states were in ball park of 40 percent.

If you take a look at a county-by-county map of the election results (this one is 2000, but all indications are that the results in 2004 are pretty similar), you see that almost every state has red-blue divisions. There's more blue in Tennessee than there is in New York. North Carolina has huge swaths of blue. Most of "blue" California, Oregon, and Washington are red.

Writing off the entire south and heartland as hopelessly conservative is a horrible overgeneralization.

If the country split up, Republicans would starve and die. Don't be so cruel.

Red (republican) states are net recipients of federal monies. Those monies are paid in by blue (democratic) states. Even within individual states, red districts are net takers as compared to blue districts.

Look, say what you want about "shades of purple" and various percents, but no one campaigned in the south, no one campaigned in Cali, MA, NY etc. All of the time and all of the money went to a few battleground states because they were the only ones that could be changed and everyone knew it.

See, the funny thing is, most of the country saw Kerry as some kind of super-liberal. Um no. Kerry is a compromise candidate. I had to hold my nose to support him because he's not liberal enough by half.

The south and the heartland are hopeless conservative. Not every individual, not every county, but every state, and the entire region. Some of those places haven't voted democrat since the Civil War. And it's the same for the north - has MA EVER voted republican?

My point isn't to bash the south. It isn't to criticize. It's that the values and the culture of some parts of this country really don't have anything to do with the values and culture of the other parts of this country.

I'm not crying because I lost. I'm saying that no matter who won this time, and no matter who wins next time, 49% of the people aren't just going to be disappointed, they're going to be sickened.

I didn't expect to convince you. But the point is, there is a regional split of values and beliefs in this country. Talk shades of purple all you want, but the split is there, by a large enough percent that no one contests Cali, the northeast, or the south. We don't agree with each other. Why should we elect each other's leader?

Look, say what you want about "shades of purple" and various percents, but no one campaigned in the south, no one campaigned in Cali, MA, NY etc. All of the time and all of the money went to a few battleground states because they were the only ones that could be changed and everyone knew it.

Click to expand...

OOO yeah they didnt have a democractic convention in MA or a Republican convention in NY did they?

BTW if you think you so damned elitist, look at the polls for your northern states, its not necessarly kerry 90 bush 10 now is it?

OOO yeah they didnt have a democractic convention in MA or a Republican convention in NY did they?

BTW if you think you so damned elitist, look at the polls for your northern states, its not necessarly kerry 90 bush 10 now is it?

Click to expand...

Ok, you need to take a deep breath and calm down. This isn't personal towards anyone. Did I say I was "elite?" Did I say the north was better than the south? No. What I said was that certain regions are fundamentally very different from each other and really have no reason to be considered part of one country.

Now, the rep. convention was in NY because they wanted to exploit 9/11 near the anniversary. There was never any thought of Bush carrying NY.

I am very disturbed by how much Bush got in the north, no doubt. But you continue to miss the point. It's clear enough that no one tries to sway states like NY, MA, GA, MI, CA, etc. It may not be 90-10 but it's a long way from 50-50.

The problem is not that the country is divided, its that Kerry wasn't able to unite the country. And John Edwards was NOT the best choice for VP. I think even the Democratic party is realizing that they nominated the wrong person.

It doesnt sound like a terrible idea, but then again, I'm a very liberal democrat in a very conservative state, missouri. And Im not alone, so lets say a split took place, there are people who would be stuck on the wrong side and couldn't afford to move. Id rather it stay the way it is and have a chance for a democractic president in 08 than a split where I'll be in the conservative hellhole with no chance for a president evne slightly right of the middle.

Another thing to keep in mind is that those red and blue states made the divisions seem too clear. All of the states were different shades of purple, really. Some more red, others more blue, but none red or blue.

Click to expand...

I agree JSW
With many of the states "too close to call", it is obvious that no state can be completely characterized the way the maps suggest. To separate the US into 2 countries (absurd) would require separating each state into 2 states and every county into 2 counties, etc. Even then people would need to move to location nearest them. These new countries would not even consistent boundaries.

Our country is mixed down to the very fabric, even as witnessed by the popular vote.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.